That 2nd Round Pick

Our second round pick (#60 overall) has taken on a bit more prominence given the perception among some that it is holding us back from signing Kimbrel. There has been some discussion about what it might be worth. The existing studies point to a value below $5M.

I decided to take a look at 10 years of data for second round picks (1996-2005) to see how the players selected in the second round those years have fared.

I looked at how many WAR they generated in their six pre-free agent years.

First totals by year for all second rounders:

1996 42.3
1997 38.9
1998 43.8
1999 82.2
2000 20.1
2001 51.9
2002 100.2
2003 59.0
2004 100.1
2005 73.4

The average over those ten years is 61.2 WAR. In the years I looked at there were 30-32 picks in the second round (some years had a small number of extra picks). So approximately 2 WAR per pick. Surplus value will be less (reflecting salaries and signing bonus). As a rough rule surplus value for these picks is three-quarters WAR. So surplus value per pick is 1.5.

For me the most interesting part of the data is the indication that the value of the second round picks has grown over time. Baseball has become more of a young man's game, which concentrates value early in a player's career (we can speculate why). For the first five years of my sample, average WAR generated per second round was 45.5. For the second five years, it was 76.9. Per pick that works out to 1.5 WAR in the first half of the sample and 2.5 in the second half. Surplus value is 1.1 in the first half and 1.9 in the second half.

could it be about the bonus pool just as much as it's about the actual pick?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Super

could it be about the bonus pool just as much as it's about the actual pick?

---

AA doesn't need extra money (acuna, albies, Donaldson)... he read president trump's book

Some additional findings. Value in the second round is highly concentrated in a handful of picks that teams "hit" on each draft.

By year, here are the number of second round picks who went on to generate 10 WAR or more in their pre-free agency years:

1996 3 (Jacque Jones, Milton Bradley, Jimmy Rollins)
1997 2 (Randy Wolf, Aaron Cook)
1998 2 (Adam Dunn, Brandon Inge)
1999 4 (Carl Crawford, Brandon Phillips, Ryan Ludwick, John Lackey)
2000 0
2001 2 (JJ Hardy, Dan Haren)
2002 4 (Joey Votto, David Bush, Jon Lester, Brian McCann)
2003 2 (Scott Baker, Andre Ethier)
2004 4 (Yovani Gallardo, Seth Smith, Hunter Pence, Dustin Pedroia)
2005 2 (Chase Headley, Yunel Escobar)

Total of 11 in the first five years and 14 in the second half of the sample.

I also looked at yield by half of the second round. Unlike the first round, where quality drops off sharply, the yield in the second half is about the same as the first half. Over the entire 10 year sample the number of 10+ WAR players taken in the first half was 14 and the number in the second half was 11. Looking at total WAR generated, the second half does a little better.

Yeah I don’t think it’s so much the pick, but the pool money that’s holding us back from signing Kimbrel. We need that 1.whatever million to help sign our 2 top picks who will most likely be over slot picks.

Zeroing in on those second round picks who generated 10+ WAR in their pre-free agency period, we see:

8 HS Hitters
3 HS Pitchers
5 College Pitchers
8 College Hitters
1 Other (Yunel)

The yield on college hitters is the best in the second round ("hits" per draft pick expended). And is worst for HS pitchers.

Teams seem to be learning from looking at data like that. The number of college hitters selected in the second round rose quite a bit the last 3 years of my sample. The Braves have had a tendency to take a lot of HS pitchers in the second round (Stovall, Spruill, Fulencheck, Wentz, Muller). Maybe Wentz and/or Muller will pan out. But so far the results are unimpressive. The results for other teams when taking HS pitchers in the second round is similarly unimpressive.

It stands to reason that with MLB teams being more data driven, they are going to do better at drafting good players in the 2nd round than they were 10-15 years ago. Since that ~$5M value for pick 60 was derived based on players drafted 10-15 years ago, the current value of pick 60 could very well be more valuable now than it was back then because modern teams are better at identifying talent.

In order for me to believe pick 60 has a current value of more than $5M, all I'd have to see is data showing teams have gotten better at selecting talent in the first 2 rounds than they were 10-15 years ago. As far as I know, no such work has been done in the public sphere.

Considering the data on the "hit" rate of all teams in round 2, the Braves have drafted extremely well in that round. Since 2002 they have taken McCann (2002), Escobar (2005), Freeman (2008), Simmons (2010), Wood (2012). That's a lot of "hits" compared to the average of about 1 hit per 10 picks in the second round. Plus some other useful players also taken in the second round: Locke (2006), Ahmed (2011), Caratini (2013). Plus some good prospects, especially Waters, from recent years.

That's mighty productive drafting in the second round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enscheff

It stands to reason that with MLB teams being more data driven, they are going to do better at drafting good players in the 2nd round than they were 10-15 years ago. Since that ~$5M value for pick 60 was derived based on players drafted 10-15 years ago, the current value of pick 60 could very well be more valuable now than it was back then because modern teams are better at identifying talent.

In order for me to believe pick 60 has a current value of more than $5M, all I'd have to see is data showing teams have gotten better at selecting talent in the first 2 rounds than they were 10-15 years ago. As far as I know, no such work has been done in the public sphere.

---

Well there is a hint from what I've posted that something changed over the course of 1996-2005. Teams could be drafting smarter (the increase in college hitters selected in the second round is an indication of "learning" by looking at the data, HS pitchers selected in round 2 has dropped which also makes sense given the data). Otoh the change could be something else. If PEDs were allowing older players to remain productive longer in the 1990s and this is no longer the case, it should follow that in the more rigorous testing environment we have now more of a player's career production will take place in those pre-free agency years. This would indirectly affect the value of draft picks and prospects generally.

Looking at the most recent 5 drafts (2014-2018) the data show that the shift toward college hitters and away from HS pitchers that developed in the second half of my sample has been sustained. Back in 1996-2000 significantly more HS pitchers were taken than college hitters in the second round. Both in 2001-2005 and in 2014-2018 slightly more college hitters were taken than HS pitchers.

If there is an additional shift in drafting philosophy (as it applies to the second round) from 2001-2005 to 2014-2018 it has been very slight and mainly comes in the form of a shift away from college pitchers.

Over the entire period (from 1995-2000 to 2014-2018) the broad shifts in the second round are

1) toward hitters and away from pitchers (which I suspect is mainly "learning" about the injury risks and consequent bust rates of pitchers). The Braves have lagged the industry here.
2) toward college players and away from HS players (very likely due to analysis on the returns to drafting those types of players).

Since HS pitchers are adversely affected by both 1 & 2, their draft share has dropped the most.

Since college hitters are positively affected by both 1 & 2, their draft share has risen the most in the second round.

All that I have concluded so far is based on second round data. It would be interesting to see if similar trends apply to other parts of the draft.

From some earlier work I have done on rounds 4-10 (based just on the Braves picks) those rounds could be good ones to go after college pitchers, especially ones with the potential to effectively transition from starting to the pen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nsacpi

Considering the data on the "hit" rate of all teams in round 2, the Braves have drafted extremely well in that round. Since 2002 they have taken McCann (2002), Escobar (2005), Freeman (2008), Simmons (2010), Wood (2012). That's a lot of "hits" compared to the average of about 1 hit per 10 picks in the second round. Plus some other useful players also taken in the second round: Locke (2006), Ahmed (2011), Caratini (2013). Plus some good prospects, especially Waters, from recent years.

That's mighty productive drafting in the second round.

---

Which is what makes getting rid of the main guys who were in charge of the draft that much harder to stomach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clvclv

Which is what makes getting rid of the main guys who were in charge of the draft that much harder to stomach.

---

The period of excellent second round drafting extends back to 2002. We've had multiple turnover of the guy in charge since 2002. I suspect when it comes to the draft (or at least that part of the draft) the quality of the scouts beating the bushes matter more than who is nominally in charge.

It is impressive to me we have succeeded so well in the second round even with our tendency to take HS pitchers. We have taken Reyes, Bacot, Locke, Stovall, Spruill, Fulenchek, Wentz, Muller since 2002 in the second round. We have done brilliantly when not taking HS pitchers and poorly when taking them. My ideal is to marry that kind of basic analysis with the skills of the scouts. Get the best of both worlds. It is a simple basic thing. But the data show that both the Braves and major league teams in general do poorly when taking HS pitchers in the second round. So take fewer of them in that part of the draft (note I said fewer, I am not saying you never take a HS pitcher then).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enscheff

It stands to reason that with MLB teams being more data driven, they are going to do better at drafting good players in the 2nd round than they were 10-15 years ago. Since that ~$5M value for pick 60 was derived based on players drafted 10-15 years ago, the current value of pick 60 could very well be more valuable now than it was back then because modern teams are better at identifying talent.

In order for me to believe pick 60 has a current value of more than $5M, all I'd have to see is data showing teams have gotten better at selecting talent in the first 2 rounds than they were 10-15 years ago. As far as I know, no such work has been done in the public sphere.

---

I actually wonder if there’s even a good way to evaluate the value of players taken in the second round in recent years, given the amount of teams that specifically take players that are not the BPA due to bonus pool restraints.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mqt

I actually wonder if there’s even a good way to evaluate the value of players taken in the second round in recent years, given the amount of teams that specifically take players that are not the BPA due to bonus pool restraints.

---

I dont think it's that many. I'll take a look at the bonus data for second round picks and see how many are conspicuously below slot.

I'm of the mind that if the Braves didn't mind losing that 2nd round pick, Kimbrel would already be on the team, probably back in March. I doubt things will change dramatically between now and June.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nsacpi

I dont think it's that many. I'll take a look at the bonus data for second round picks and see how many are conspicuously below slot.

---

3-4 picks per year (a little over 10% of the second round) see bonuses that deviate significantly from other 2nd rounders...there tends to be more deviations to the upside than downside, but there is some of both...in a really careful study this should be accounted for...for our purposes it doesn't matter